Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!

A couple fighting a £60 speeding fine face a £15,000 award for costs having failed in their appeal.

Physicist Iain Fielden and his wife Vikki were ordered to pay costs by the Bradford Crown Court judge making this the costliest speed camera case ever brought in the UK.

The original offence took place in 2006 when Mrs Fielden was photographed by a speed camera driving at 36mph in a 30mph limit. A fixed penalty of £60 with the mandatory 3 penalty points was issued.

Dr Fielden, an expert in the study of light claims the reading was erroneous because the camera was located on a bend in the road and claimed that as a result of the way light travels the camera could not have recorded an accurate speed measurement.

The first appeal was rejected and the £60 fine increased to £100 plus costs and this subsequent appeal at Crown Court having also failed has increased the costs to £15,000.

Dr Fielden now intends to take his appeal to the High Court claiming he has new evidence. Although appealing to the High Court places all costs on hold it means that Dr Fielden faces an even larger bill should the appeal be lost.

Comments

Posted by gem on Tue May 05, 2009 7:54 pm

A bit of a plonker. Dr Arrogant more like, but I can understand the anger. A 20 mph limit....with a camera to enforce - what a joke. More proof of revenue collection purpose.

Maybe the police could photograph the cars on (say) zig zag lines at this 20mph spot.

It would be good to do a Freedom of Information request and get an idea of how much time/cost has gone into this revenue collection activity.

Posted by Darren on Tue May 05, 2009 8:20 pm

That's a typo and my error, it should have read 30mph and I'll go back and correct that now

However there are 20mph cameras, London has a set of SPECS on Tower Bridge in a 20 zone

Darren Griffin - Editor

Posted by bcr5784 on Thu May 07, 2009 4:53 pm

Not sure if he's arrogant or not. There clearly are some erroneous prosecutions and if I knew enough about the physics and had the finances, I might be tempted to contest them.

Take the guy who was recently jailed for doing 122mph on his bike in the wet. Now I am quite prepared to believe he was going well over the 50 limit, but having seen the video several times, I find it inconceivable that he was doing 122. He simply would not have got round the following bend at the angle of lean he had at even half that speed. It takes a long time to slow at that speed ... I suspect that the laser measured the speed of his back wheel - the top of which is doing 122mph when the bike is doing 61. Of course he may well have been doing over 61 if the camera was just a few inches lower.

Likewise claims that of bikes doing 200+mph on a single carriageway are simply laughable.

Posted by boltysan on Fri May 08, 2009 7:07 am

bcr5784 Wrote:

I suspect that the laser measured the speed of his back wheel - the top of which is doing 122mph when the bike is doing 61. Of course he may well have been doing over 61 if the camera was just a few inches lower.

Are you sure? the linear speed of the tyre will be the same as the speed of the bike, otherwise the tyre would be spinning at twice the speed of the bike which would mean that the tyre would be slipping on the road all the time,

Or am I wrong? it has happened once before

Posted by PaulB2005 on Fri May 08, 2009 7:13 am

I think you are right. I can't see how the top of the tyre can be doing 122 mph as it would mean the bottom of the tyre would be doing 122 mph too. If the bottom of the tyre is doing 122 mph then the bike is doing 122 mph and.........

Speed guns don't measure how fast an object is rotating but how fast an object is moving towards / away from the speed gun operator. Even if the top of the wheel is moving at 122 mph relative to the swing arm when riding at 61 mph, the wheel is still moving away from the speed gun operator at 61 mph so the rotational speed of the wheel means nothing.

It a bit like saying if you walk down the aisle of a plane doing 700 mph at 4 mph you are walking at 704 mph. It doesn't work like that....

Also didn't the rider admit he was doing that speed? From BBC News Website...

Quote:

I hold my hands up - I was doing 122 MPH on that road and that was dangerous, especially with my lad on board

Robert Bennett, motorcyclist

Posted by PaulB2005 on Fri May 08, 2009 7:19 am

Quote:

Likewise claims that of bikes doing 200+mph on a single carriageway are simply laughable.

Has anyone every really claimed to be doing 200 mph + on a single carriageway?

Posted by SpikeUK on Fri May 08, 2009 8:12 am

If the bike was doing 61mph, then the top of the tyre was travelling forward at 122 mph while the bottom of the tyre was stationary. Only the centre of the hub of the wheel was doing 61mph, the same speed as the rest of the bike.

Tomtom 930 - excellent
Tomtom 700 - retired

Posted by AlexLS on Fri May 08, 2009 8:27 am

boltysan Wrote:

bcr5784 Wrote:

I suspect that the laser measured the speed of his back wheel - the top of which is doing 122mph when the bike is doing 61. Of course he may well have been doing over 61 if the camera was just a few inches lower.

Are you sure? the linear speed of the tyre will be the same as the speed of the bike, otherwise the tyre would be spinning at twice the speed of the bike which would mean that the tyre would be slipping on the road all the time,

The speed of the axle will be the same as the speed of the bike, and the speed of the tyre as a whole will also be the same. However, the velocity of a point on the top of the tyre must be greater than the bike (in the direction of travel) since it has to overtake the axle to get around it. Conversely, right at the bottom, it's actually stationary (unless the wheel's slipping on the road) and being overtaken by the axle.

Posted by PaulB2005 on Fri May 08, 2009 8:39 am

Quote:

If the bike was doing 61mph, then the top of the tyre was travelling forward at 122 mph while the bottom of the tyre was stationary. Only the centre of the hub of the wheel was doing 61mph, the same speed as the rest of the bike.

Of course My error.... However it doesn't matter because the Speed Camera Gun measures the rate at which the wheel as a whole is moving towards or away the operator. It doesn't measure the rotational speed of the tyre. If you jacked up a bikes rear wheel, engaged the gears and revved the engine. With the wheel spinning at the equivalent of 60 mph pointing the Speed Camera Gun at the tyre will record 0 mph as the tyre is not moving relative the the operator.

It wouldn't matter if the tyre was spun at 100 mph, if the tyre never moves (not talking about rotating) it records 0 mph.

Now if you could align the Speed Camera Gun so it was pointing exactly at the top most part of the "tread" and you could record the individual blocks of the tread pattern moving then yes i agree it would probably show double the bikes speed, but I'd challenge anyone to do that at normal operating distances and with a hand held unit.

Posted by AYorkshireman on Fri May 08, 2009 3:00 pm

Anyone who knows this stretch of road would hardly say that the camera is on a bend. There is a very slight kink in the road at that point and that is all. If the speed had been say 31mph perhaps there would be cause to challenge but 36mph....... Anyway within the last week the council have redone the markings and instead of them following the line of the road they are now at a slight angle to take into account the fact that a vehicle at that point would not be driving in a straightline but rather towards the right to allow for the kink in the road. No doubt this will stop any other claims if there is anyone else silly enough to think they can get away with it this way.

Posted by Darren on Fri May 08, 2009 4:11 pm

Whilst the defence may not succeed, Dr Fielden is far better qualified than anyone here in the calculation of any errors.

We can all speculate but no-one here knows what the exact nature of the defence is based upon.

Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?.Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!